[1] Whether only stocks or shares belongs to a domestic profit-making corporation or a cooperative's property owned by the corporation for profit or the cooperative (negative), and the validity of a disposition of sale by the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the property (negative)

[2] The legal nature of the sale disposition under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Ownership (Administrative Disposition) and whether the legal principle on the sale of other person's right under Article 569 of the Civil Code is applied (negative)

[3] Whether the disposal of the property devolving upon the State by an unincorporated administrative agency becomes effective pursuant to Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State (negative)

[1] Article 2(3) of the Act on the Property Reversion provides that the stocks or shares of a profit-making corporation or a cooperative, which was established in Korea prior to August 9, 1945 and belonged to an institution, a national, or an organization of Japan, shall be deemed to have been reverted to the stocks or shares. In such a case, only the stocks or shares shall belong to the corporation, and the property owned by the corporation shall be excluded from the property reverted to the corporation, and even if only the stocks owned by the corporation were sold by the State under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, it shall be null

[2] The sale of the property devolving upon the administrative agency under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State is not a sale under the private law since the administrative agency's disposition is not a sale under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State. Thus, even if the real estate sold by the administrative agency is not a property devolving upon the State, it shall not be deemed that

[3] On May 9, 1953, where there was a joint signature between the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and the Administrator of the Office of Government Administration and the head of the Office of Government Administration, the right to sell the property devolving upon the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs (Article 17 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, enacted by Act No. 74 of December 19, 194). Since September 23, 1954, the right to sell the property devolving upon the State to the Administrator of the Office of Government Administration (Article 17 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, amended by Act No. 342 of September 23, 1954), from December 31, 1956, the right to sell the property devolving upon the State to the Minister of Finance and Economy (Article 17 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, amended by Act No. 427 of December 31, 1956).

[1] Article 2 (3) of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction / [2] Article 569 of the Civil Act, Article 8 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction / [3] Article 4 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction / [3] Articles 8 and 17 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction / [46, May 29, 19

[1] Supreme Court Decision 64Nu54 delivered on July 23, 1964 (No. 12-2, 26), Supreme Court Decision 86Meu804 delivered on September 9, 1986 (Gong1986, 1386), Supreme Court Decision 94Da22309 delivered on September 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2813), Supreme Court Decision 95Da4209 delivered on December 5, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 195) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 65Da404 delivered on May 25, 1965 (No. 13-1, 160), Supreme Court Decision 91Da10435 delivered on June 25, 1991 (No. 1989) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da1971989 delivered on June 25, 1991

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na25106 delivered on October 8, 1996

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant sold the land of this case owned by the non-party on May 9, 1960, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the non-party through the name of the defendant. However, since the non-party company, as a result of the lawsuit filed against the defendant and the non-party, the sale of the land of this case constitutes the sale of another party's right, and thus, the defendant again acquired the ownership of this case's land again constitutes the sale of another party's right. Accordingly, the defendant's disposal of the land of this case is null and void. In light of the defendant's assertion that the sale certificate (Evidence No. 6) of this case's land belongs to the non-party, which is the authority of administration and disposal of the property belonging to the non-party, and it is difficult to recognize that the sale of the land of this case was due to the non-party's sale of the land of this case under the non-party 1's ownership transfer due to the non-party's disposal procedure.

2. Article 2(3) of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction provides that the stocks or shares of a profit-making corporation or a cooperative, which was established in Korea prior to August 9, 1945 and belonged to an institution, a national, or a cooperative thereof, shall be deemed to have been reverted to the stocks or shares. In such a case, only the stocks or shares belonging to the corporation shall be excluded from the property devolving upon ownership; and even if only the stocks owned by the corporation were sold by the State under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Ownership by misunderstanding that the land belonging to the corporation is reverted to the State, it shall be deemed null and void as a matter of course (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 64Nu54, Jul. 23, 196; 86Meu804, Sept. 9, 198; 95Da4209, Dec. 5, 1995).

According to the facts duly established by the court below and records, the non-party company was established in Korea on October 15, 1943 from around November 1, 1943 to July 194, purchased the land of this case and used it for the purpose of its business. At the time of August 9, 1945, 3,500 shares issued 3,600 shares were owned by Japan, and thereafter, the defendant-affiliated Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and the head of the government office of the government office of the government office of the government office of the government office of the defendant were owned by Japan. The non-party company's sale of the property belonging to the non-party company in accordance with the sale contract of this case (the non-party company's property belonging to the non-party company's property belongs to the non-party 2 and the non-party company's sale of the property belonging to the non-party 1 and the non-party company's property belonging to the non-party 2 as part of the sale contract of this case (the non-party 1 and the non-party 2).

On the other hand, on May 9, 1953, when there was a joint signature between the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and the Administrator of the Office of Government Administration, the right to sell the property devolving upon the owner of each division carrying out the business of the pertinent property (Article 17 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the owner of each division carrying out the business of the pertinent property) but in 1959, the right to sell the pertinent land was over the Minister of Finance and Economy (Article 17 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the owner of each division carrying out the business of the pertinent property (amended by Act No. 342 of September 23, 1954). Since the 1959, the right to sell the pertinent land was over the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry (amended by Act No. 521 of December 18, 1959) and the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do, who did not have the right to sell the pertinent land at the time of the sale and disposal of the pertinent land, there is no room for its invalidation.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the sale of the land of this case was null and void on the grounds that the sale of the land of this case was made in accordance with the procedure of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging, on the grounds that the name of the seller in the sale certificate prepared on the land of this case is written as the Minister of Finance and Economy, not the management and disposition office for the property devolving upon the owner, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles on the disposal of the property devolving upon the ownership

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)